Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: turnover decrease in Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. ... on 3 October, 2017Matching Fragments
(iii) In the present case, appellant company was giving the royalty more for enjoying trade name and trade mark whose value NIL after termination of the contract.
(iv) Appellant company have non-exclusive right to use the trademarks within the territory of India.
(v) The royalty is determined on the basis of percentage of turnover and it is not paid as lumpsum, therefore the same can increase or decrease on the basis of turnover.5
6.3 I find that various decisions relied on by the AO for disallowance of royalty have been rendered on distinguishable sets of fact and are not applicable to the issue in question. I agree that the appellant has not acquired any benefit of enduring nature and it will not constitute acquisition of any assets. Hence, respectfully following the ratio of various decisions cited by the appellant and particularly and following the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s G4S Security Services, 'on similar facts, I hold that the payment of royalty in the present case is not a capital expenditure. Therefore ground no.1 of the appellant is allowed in favour of the appellant."